Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Classical Hebrew morphology and syntax, aspect, linguistics, discourse analysis, and related topics
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Post Reply
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by Isaac Fried »

Karl says
The monarchy ended about 70 years before this prophesy was made. The prophesy refers to centuries after Nehemiah.
The prophesy
יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ וְאֵין לוֹ
consists of two parts: יִכָּרֵת מָשִׁיחַ for the removal of the last anointed king, and וְאֵין לוֹ, that there will be no more (possibly, also a hint to the slaughtering of his sons). The truth of the second part became gradually evident only many years later.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by Jason Hare »

kwrandolph wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:30 am For me, the questions are:

• What does the text actually say?

• Can the text be correlated to history?

• What about various theories concerning the text? Can they be supported by what the text actually says?
Yet you demonstrated in the discussion of Isaiah 7 that the passage's meaning has less importance for you than your religious views from beyond that passage. The chapter speaks about the fall of Aram and Ephraim and a child born as a sign that God is on the side of Judah over against these enemies. Yet, you interpret the passage to be a reference to the Messiah being born of a virgin. (1) The text does not say that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. You've brought that into the text from your theology. (2) The text is not historically correlated by moving the events 700 years into the future. (3) The text can be interpreted perfectly from within its own context to show how it had to do with events around the fall of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim/Israel) and the survival of Judah until the invasion of the Babylonians.

It's really a good idea generally to place stricter boundaries on passages that are going to cause discussion to degenerate into disagreements that are impassable because of theological divergence. It's obvious that Christians are under the obligation to read Isaiah 7 at least as some kind of "double fulfilment" that allows for the virgin birth interpretation. The same is often the case with Daniel 9, which is used by many to prove the time of the arrival of "the Messiah" (even though "Messiah" was not a technical term for the "ultimate king of Israel" in the text of the Tanach). Since I cannot come right out and tell you that Jesus is not the Messiah (my personal opinion on the issue), it is similarly improper to come to Jews and say "the passage is clearly about Jesus" while ignoring how Jews understand the passage. These things have not been settled over the years, and we know that your side interprets the passage in this way. Why must it be dragged out again?

It's proper to offer possible understandings of the text. It's proper to discuss what pieces of the text mean. Things can be kicked back and forth, obviously. But, using theology to place limitations on the meaning of the text, and insisting that others interpret within those same limitations even though they do not interpret the larger text in the same way, is over the line. I'm just saying that these passages are CONTROVERSIAL and that we must be CAREFUL in what we proclaim about them. This isn't a theology board. I'd think that someone who has been so long engaged on this board would know that and respect it rather than attacking the messenger.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ducky
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by ducky »

SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:17 pm That is an excellent point, David. Thank you very much.
I had never heard that argument, and it is valid. Gabriel told Daniel that he would understand the message.
I think the word to restore and build Jerusalem is the word from Cyrus, which was monumental, and which would shortly follow.
Just to make things clear...
The "word" in this text (מוצא דבר) is not of Cyrus (or Artaxerxes).

Those who see the first משיח in this text as Cyrus (or Zerubbabel, or Joshua the High Priest) understand the "word" as the word that was given to Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10 and Daniel 9:2).
And then, counting 7 sevens from that time, get you to the time of Cyrus (as first משיח).
And that is the meaning of "from the word (that God gave to Jer.) to משיח sevens sevens".

Also, notice that the book of Ezra (That comes right after Daniel) starts with:
בִשְׁנַת אַחַת לְכוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס לִכְלוֹת דְּבַר י״י מִפִּי יִרְמְיָה הֵעִיר י״י אֶת רוּחַ כֹּרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס וַיַּעֲבֶר קוֹל בְּכׇל מַלְכוּתוֹ וְגַם בְּמִכְתָּב לֵאמֹר

And that continues the idea that the מוצא דבר refers to Jeremiah and the link to Cyrus.


Or...
Some say that the word=מוצא דבר refers to verse 23, and that is the specific time of Daniel.
And then, counting from that get us to Nehemiah (as משיח) but the calculation is less accurate.
(But it is hard to follow the dates in that issue, so maybe).

Anyway, the count can start from these two options only.
SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:17 pm 9:24 says that one of the purposes of the 70 weeks is to seal the vision and prophet.
It may be that after the first 7 weeks the writing of the Old Testament was closed.
Or the 7 weeks could be the completion of the building of the temple or of the rebuilding of the city or of all 3.
You realize that these are silly excuses that were made to justify the distortion of the text, And there is nothing into them.

Not only that the text does split it to 7+62.
It also comes to tell you clearly that after 7 there is a משיח and then after 62 there is an event concern a different משיח.

There is no other way to read it than to see it as two different people.
David Hunter
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by SteveMiller »

ducky wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:30 pm Just to make things clear...
The "word" in this text (מוצא דבר) is not of Cyrus (or Artaxerxes).

Those who see the first משיח in this text as Cyrus (or Zerubbabel, or Joshua the High Priest) understand the "word" as the word that was given to Jeremiah (Jer. 29:10 and Daniel 9:2).
And then, counting 7 sevens from that time, get you to the time of Cyrus (as first משיח).
And that is the meaning of "from the word (that God gave to Jer.) to משיח sevens sevens".
Jer 29:10 was given right after Jeconiah was taken captive, which was the beginning of the 70 year captivity (29:1-2).
So from the giving of that word until Cyrus is 69 years, not 49.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:30 pm Also, notice that the book of Ezra (That comes right after Daniel) starts with:
בִשְׁנַת אַחַת לְכוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס לִכְלוֹת דְּבַר י״י מִפִּי יִרְמְיָה הֵעִיר י״י אֶת רוּחַ כֹּרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס וַיַּעֲבֶר קוֹל בְּכׇל מַלְכוּתוֹ וְגַם בְּמִכְתָּב לֵאמֹר

And that continues the idea that the מוצא דבר refers to Jeremiah and the link to Cyrus.
Both Ezra 1:1 and Dan 9:25 using the word דבר is a good point, but not strong.
Cyrus' proclamation is also a word.
Ezra 1:1 says דְּבַר י״י which is quite different than just דְּבַר in Dan 9:25.
The context of Dan 9:25 does not demand that the word be of God, so if it was the word of God, it should say so.
That, of course, is arguable.
Basically, I think your argument would work if the time from Jeremiah's prophecy until Cyrus was 49 years, but that does not appear to be so from the Biblical dates.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:30 pm Or...
Some say that the word=מוצא דבר refers to verse 23, and that is the specific time of Daniel.
And then, counting from that get us to Nehemiah (as משיח) but the calculation is less accurate.
(But it is hard to follow the dates in that issue, so maybe).
That is another interesting theory I had never considered. Thank you for sharing it.
It is compelling at first because both 9:23 and 9:25 use the term "going forth of the word".
I do not have a serious problem with this as the start, because Cyrus' proclamation came soon after this, so they are basically the same starting time. I don't know why you are so dismissive of Cyrus' proclamation, but give this one serious consideration.
The problem here is demanding that mashiach nagid comes 49 years after this.
I find it hard to call Nehemiah a ‎ מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד.
Also, I don't know of any Biblical timeline that would put him at 49 years after this word to Daniel.
ducky wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 8:30 pm
SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:17 pm 9:24 says that one of the purposes of the 70 weeks is to seal the vision and prophet.
It may be that after the first 7 weeks the writing of the Old Testament was closed.
Or the 7 weeks could be the completion of the building of the temple or of the rebuilding of the city or of all 3.
You realize that these are silly excuses that were made to justify the distortion of the text, And there is nothing into them.

Not only that the text does split it to 7+62.
It also comes to tell you clearly that after 7 there is a משיח and then after 62 there is an event concern a different משיח.

There is no other way to read it than to see it as two different people.
Why is this reading not possible?:
From the going forth of the word to bring back and to build Jerusalem until Messiah, Prince is 7 weeks + 62 weeks.
She shall return and be built, the street and moat, but in the distress of the times.
And after the 62 weeks Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by SteveMiller »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pm Yet you demonstrated in the discussion of Isaiah 7 that the passage's meaning has less importance for you than your religious views from beyond that passage. The chapter speaks about the fall of Aram and Ephraim and a child born as a sign that God is on the side of Judah over against these enemies. Yet, you interpret the passage to be a reference to the Messiah being born of a virgin. (1) The text does not say that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. You've brought that into the text from your theology. (2) The text is not historically correlated by moving the events 700 years into the future. (3) The text can be interpreted perfectly from within its own context to show how it had to do with events around the fall of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim/Israel) and the survival of Judah until the invasion of the Babylonians.
Jason, thanks for sharing this in a succinct, well organized way.
I will read the Isa 7 thread you refer to try to answer your 3 points there.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)
ducky
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by ducky »

SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:22 pm Jer 29:10 was given right after Jeconiah was taken captive, which was the beginning of the 70-year captivity (29:1-2).
So from the giving of that word until Cyrus is 69 years, not 49.
You need to remember that the dates that are in the bible not always the same as the dates according to the historians.

But still... it fits in both views.

The prophecy to Jer. about rebuilding Jerusalem should start when the temple is destroyed, right?

In Jer. 51:12 it is said that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple in the 19th years of his ruling.

The Prophecy of Jer. says that Jerusalem will start to be built after 70 years of Babylon Ruling. (29:10)

Now take these 70 years minus 19 years = 51
and that is the time that is counted according to the bible.

***
And if you'll go to the Historians...
Then the temple was destroyed in -586
The Cyrus Cylinder is in -538
=48
SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:22 pm Both Ezra 1:1 and Dan 9:25 using the word דבר is a good point, but not strong.
Cyrus' proclamation is also a word.
Ezra 1:1 says דְּבַר י״י which is quite different than just דְּבַר in Dan 9:25.
The context of Dan 9:25 does not demand that the word is of God, so if it was the word of God, it should say so.
That, of course, is arguable.
Basically, I think your argument would work if the time from Jeremiah's prophecy until Cyrus was 49 years, but that does not appear to be so from the Biblical dates.
First, I can see it does match.

Second, According to the context, this whole chapter starts with the fact that Daniel reads Jer. prophecy and starts asking this question. (Daniel 9:2).
Jer. prophecy about restoring Jerusalem is the basis of this whole thing.

So in Daniel 9:2, Daniel seeks to find the meaning of the word of God that said that Jerusalem would be restored.

And after all that, Gabriel came and talk about that, And he tells him about the coming out of that word to build Jerusalem.
So if this chapter started with Daniel reading this prophecy of Jer. then it seems that this מצא דבר that Gabriel was talking about is the same דבר that Daniel sought to find in the first place.

Notice also that in Jer. 29:10 it is called דברי הטוב (my good word)

And once again I have to say that seeing this דבר linked to any word that would come in the future is not reasonable because it leaves Daniel clueless even though he was precious to God and Gabriel was sent to give him the answer.
SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:22 pm I don't know why you are so dismissive of Cyrus' proclamation but give this one serious consideration.
I dismiss any future event to be seen as this דבר.
As I said before, it turns these words to Daniel into vain words.

And also, Daniel seeks to find When will Jerusalem will be built, right?
So what is the answer that you propose?
You propose that Gabriel came and started telling him things that would start to happen when Jerusalem will be built.
But WHEN it will be built?

It's like one wants to know when does the football game starts, and the answer he gets is:
"When the referee will blow his whistle then there would be a good game with a few scores, and then after 30 minutes, it will rain, and then after 20 minutes, the captain of that team will be injured, and then..."

The question is when will the game start, and the answer is not even relevant, even though it talks about the game.

So also here,
Daniel wants to know when Jerusalem will be built, and you are telling me that Gabriel told him that in the future, when an unknown king will command that, then Jerusalem will be this and that and that and this.

It is not even relevant to Daniel's basic question.
SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:22 pm The problem here is demanding that Mashiach Nagid comes 49 years after this.
I find it hard to call Nehemiah a ‎ מָשִׁ֣יחַ נָגִ֔יד.
Also, I don't know of any Biblical timeline that would put him at 49 years after this word to Daniel.
I don't think it is a problem to call Nehemiah in the title משיח if he was the leader who built Jerusalem.

About the count...
I think we can get less than 49 years but more than 40 years.
SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:22 pm Why is this reading not possible?:
From the going forth of the word to bring back and to build Jerusalem until Messiah, Prince is 7 weeks + 62 weeks.
She shall return and be built, the street and moat, but in the distress of the times.
And after the 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.
According to how you write it, (if you see it as one person) it means that the same Messiah came and gone at the same time.
You say that from time X until the Messiah there would be 7+62=69 weeks.
And then you say that after the 62 weeks (which is the 62 in 7+62) the Messiah will be cut off.
So it means that his coming and cutting off are at the same time?
both events would happen in 69 weeks after time X?
Does that what you mean?

I don't see how we can read it like that.
(not to mention ignoring the split of 7+62 as if it isn't really written).
David Hunter
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by Jason Hare »

SteveMiller wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 11:34 pm Jason, thanks for sharing this in a succinct, well organized way.
I will read the Isa 7 thread you refer to try to answer your 3 points there.
My point wasn't really that anyone should read the text as I say. The text speaks for itself. I just thought it strange that Karl was talking about context and letting the text mean what it means when he completely disregards context when it suits his theology. That's really odd to me.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
kwrandolph
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by kwrandolph »

Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pm
kwrandolph wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:30 am For me, the questions are:

• What does the text actually say?

• Can the text be correlated to history?

• What about various theories concerning the text? Can they be supported by what the text actually says?
Yet you demonstrated in the discussion of Isaiah 7 that the passage's meaning has less importance for you than your religious views from beyond that passage.
You need to look in the mirror before saying that.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pmThe chapter speaks about the fall of Aram and Ephraim and a child born as a sign that God is on the side of Judah over against these enemies.
Does the chapter actually say that in so many words? Or is that your interpretation? An interpretation at least partially based on your religion?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pmYet, you interpret the passage to be a reference to the Messiah being born of a virgin. (1) The text does not say that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. You've brought that into the text from your theology.
This is a claim that is totally based on your religion. You don’t have linguistic evidence to back it up. You don’t have historic evidence to back it up.

Linguistically, the term comes from the root meaning “unknown” in contrast to one who is sexually active is one who is “known”. Historically Jews of the first century AD who knew Hebrew specifically said that it meant “virgin” in the sense we know it today. Nowhere in Tanakh is it used in a manner that clearly refers to someone who is not a virgin or at least expected to be a virgin.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pm(2) The text is not historically correlated by moving the events 700 years into the future.
Nowhere in that passage does it deny that possibility. You need to look at the exact words used.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pm(3) The text can be interpreted perfectly from within its own context to show how it had to do with events around the fall of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraim/Israel) and the survival of Judah until the invasion of the Babylonians.
While the main thrust of the total passage is as you say, about the survival of Judah, the exact words of the verses in question don’t rule out a fulfillment centuries in the future.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pmIt's really a good idea generally to place stricter boundaries on passages that are going to cause discussion to degenerate into disagreements that are impassable because of theological divergence.
This forum has a policy for not proselytizing. That does NOT mean that we cannot put forth our views and understandings, rather on religiously controversial issues we don’t insist that our interpretations are the only ones acceptable.

Here you are, proselytizing for your religion.

I put forward my case, but it’s up to you to accept it or not.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pmIt's obvious that Christians are under the obligation to read Isaiah 7 at least as some kind of "double fulfilment" that allows for the virgin birth interpretation.
I know of no Biblical Christians who accept the idea of a “double fulfillment”.

Here you need to be careful of what you mean by “Christian”. In its uses in modern English, it is an undefined term. As for me, I use the term “Biblical Christian” to limit its use to the description given in the Bible.
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pmThe same is often the case with Daniel 9, which is used by many to prove the time of the arrival of "the Messiah" (even though "Messiah" was not a technical term for the "ultimate king of Israel" in the text of the Tanach). Since I cannot come right out and tell you that Jesus is not the Messiah (my personal opinion on the issue), it is similarly improper to come to Jews and say "the passage is clearly about Jesus" while ignoring how Jews understand the passage. These things have not been settled over the years, and we know that your side interprets the passage in this way. Why must it be dragged out again?
Here there were several questions raised in this discussion from different angles. I carefully tried to limit myself to linguistic and historic issues encompassed by the questions. For example, are the events listed in verses 26b and 27 different events as first postulated about two centuries ago, or are they of the same event? My answer is that the linguistic evidence points to them being of the same event. Further that the descriptions given in those verses fit exactly what we know of the Jewish revolt presently understood to have taken place from 66–73 AD. I question the dates.

I would not have discussed this passage had it not been raised by others. But once raised, then I entered the discussion. I entered to give an interpretation based on a literal reading of the passage, both what it says, and what it doesn’t say. Does this passage describe a literal even that lasted exactly 70 sevens, or 490 years? When did it end? Does not the description of the Jewish revolt indicate its ending? When did it begin? If it is of exactly 490 years, wouldn’t that put its beginning at exactly 490 years before the end of the Jewish revolt? What was the trigger of its beginning? Was it not the command given to Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem as a living, populated city? What is the literal reading of the passage?
Jason Hare wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:48 pmIt's proper to offer possible understandings of the text. It's proper to discuss what pieces of the text mean. Things can be kicked back and forth, obviously. But, using theology to place limitations on the meaning of the text, and insisting that others interpret within those same limitations even though they do not interpret the larger text in the same way, is over the line. I'm just saying that these passages are CONTROVERSIAL and that we must be CAREFUL in what we proclaim about them. This isn't a theology board. I'd think that someone who has been so long engaged on this board would know that and respect it rather than attacking the messenger.
You need to recognize that your positions that you mention in the above two examples are just as religious as anything I have written. Everyone has a religion. It doesn’t matter if the religion is atheistic like Mahayana Buddhism or Secular Humanism, or polytheistic like Shinto, they are all religions. Other than questioning how an event that happened decades before the prophesy was made could be a fulfillment of an event the prophesy said would happen centuries in the future, was not all I said about that claim that it is a religious claim?

All I say, assuming that the text is to be read literally, what does the text say using the best linguistic evidence available? Whether you trust what it says literally as the truth is not the question. Your acceptance or non-acceptance of the literal reading is a religious question, all I say what does it say literally?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Karl W. Randolph.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by Jason Hare »

Karl,

No matter what forum you participate on, you should know that this type of bickering with moderators is out of line. You know exactly what I was saying, and it was not out of line to remind people that pluralism and non-proselytization is the forum standard. Stop bickering and biting. Enough of this nonsense already. You know precisely what I was saying, and these attacks are out of place, no matter what you think of me personally.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
Isaac Fried
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm

Re: Dan 9:26-27 antecedent of He shall confirm a covenant

Post by Isaac Fried »

Karl writes
This forum has a policy for not proselytizing. That does NOT mean that we cannot put forth our views and understandings, rather on religiously controversial issues we don’t insist that our interpretations are the only ones acceptable.
I have not read the polemic in its entirety, but I must say that I can see Karl's point. A great part of the interest in the HB stems from deep religious beliefs, and one may not separate the one from the other. If Karl seems to find in the biblical narrative some hidden divine message in support of his faith, even by a seemingly unorthodox interpretation of the text, so let it be.
All we can do is politely present alternative interpretations and understandings in support of our own world view.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com
Post Reply